Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acoustic-electric stimulation

References

• Baskent D., Shannon R.V. Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 113: 2064–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskent D., Shannon R.V. Frequency-place compression and expansion in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116: 3130–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskent D., Shannon R.V. Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 117: 1405–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A. Hanin L. & Hnath T. 1985. A sentence test of speech perception: Reliability, set equivalence, and short term learning. Internal report RCI 10, Speech and Hearing Sciences Research Centre, City University of New York.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs R.J., Tykocinski M., Stidham K., Roberson J.B. Cochleostomy site: Implications for electrode placement and hearing preservation. Acta Otolaryngol 2005; 125: 870–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Dillon H., Ching T., Katsch R., Keidser G. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12: 37–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dettman S.J., D'Costa W.A., Dowell R.C., Winton E.J., Hill K.L., et al. Cochlear implants for children with significant residual hearing. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130: 612–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C., Rainey D. Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 2993–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman M.F., Spahr A.J., Loizou P.C., Dana C.J., Schmidt J.S. Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS). Ear Hear 2005; 26: 371–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C., Westermann S. ICRA noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology 2001; 40: 148–57
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Baskent D., Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 1150–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J. & Galvin J.J., 3rd. 2003. The effects of short-term training for spectrally mismatched noise-band speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 1065–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V., Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 3586–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J. Nogaki G. & Galvin J.J., 3rd. 2005. Auditory training with spectrally shifted speech: Implications for cochlear implant patient auditory rehabilitation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 6, 180–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz B.J., Turner C.W. Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope 2003; 113: 1726–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz B.J., Turner C. Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant. Acta Oto-Laryngol 2004; 124: 344–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz B.J., Turner C., Gfeller K.E., Lowder M.W. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: Advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope 2005; 115: 796–802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood D.D. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species: 29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 87: 2592–605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gstoettner W., Kiefer J., Baumgartner W.D., Pok S., Peters S., et al. Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Oto-Laryngol 2004; 124: 348–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollow R., Salomon R., Tselepis V., Leigh J., Dowell R.C. An up-date on speech recognition benefits for adults using cochlear implants. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology 2006; 28: 27
   Google Scholar
• James C., Albegger K., Battmer R., Burdo S., Deggouj N., et al. Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: How and why. Acta Otolaryngol 2005; 125: 481–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawano A., Seldon H.L., Clark G.M. Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction in human cochlear maps: Measurement of the lengths of organ of Corti, outer wall, inner wall. and Rosenthal's canal Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996; 105: 701–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer J., Pok M., Adunka O., Sturzebecher E., Baumgartner W., et al. Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: Results of a clinical study. Audiol Neorootol 2005; 10: 134–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehnhart E. 1993. Intracochlear placement of the cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique. HNO, 356–359.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDermott H.J. Sucher C. & Simpson A. In press. Electro-acoustic stimulation: Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons. Audiol Neorootol.
   Google Scholar
• National Acoustic Laboratories. 2000. Speech and Noise for Hearing Aid Evaluation. Australian Hearing, Chatswood, NSW.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson P.B., Jin S.H., Carney A.E., Nelson D.A. Understanding speech in modulated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 113: 961–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C.V., Studebaker G.A. An evaluation of some assumptions underlying the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 75: 1606–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson G.E., Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27: 62–70
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pfingst B.E., Rai D.T. Effects of level on nonspectral frequency difference limens for electrical and acoustic stimuli. Hear Res 1990; 50: 43–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiss L.A., Turner C.W., Erenberg S.R., Gantz B.J. Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007; 8: 241–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen S., Faulkner A., Wilkinson L. Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: Implications for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106: 3629–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinstein J.T., Parkinson W.S., Tyler R.S., Gantz B.J. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: Effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999; 20: 445–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stakhovskaya O., Sridhar D., Bonham B.H., Leake P.A. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: Implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007; 8: 220–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner C.W., Gantz B.J., Vidal C., Behrens A., Henry B.A. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115: 1729–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeire K., Anderson I., Flynn M., Van de Heyning P. The influence of different speech processor and hearing aid settings on speech perception outcomes in electric acoustic stimulation patients. Ear Hear 2008; 29: 76–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar